According to KUAM news, the former Archdiocesan Finance Council said that:
The property was not intended to be limited to exclusive groups, but to benefit all local Catholics.The Yona property was purchased in 2002. However, it was in 1999 when Father Pius, Pat Cottman, and Javier Santaballa presented to Archbishop Apuron a petition to open a Redemptoris Mater Seminary on Guam. The Archbishop agreed and a letter was drafted on February 2, 1999. The letter was blessed by Archbishop Apuron and is on record. The petition was approved in September 8, 1999 by the International Team of the Way (Kiko Arguello, Carmen Hernandez, and Father Mario). A decree was then signed by Archbishop Apuron in that same year. This information can be found in the records of the Guam Legislature (the bold is mine):
WHEREAS, Fr. Pius Sammut, OCD, Pat Cottman and Javier Santaballa, met with Archbishop Anthony S. Apuron, OFM, Cap., D.D., Archbishop of Hagatna, Fr. David C. Quitugua, Vicar general of the Archdiocese, and Fr. Adrian Cristobal, Chancellor of the Archdiocese, Fr. Pius Sammut, OCD, Pat Cottman and Javier Santaballa, the Catechists, and presented to the Archbishop the possibility of requesting a Redemptoris Mater Seminary to the initiators of the Neo-Catechumenal Way for Guam for the New Evangelization of the vast region of the Pacific; and
WHEREAS, Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron O.F.M., Cap., D.D., Archbishop of Hagatna and President of CEP AC, decided to accept the recommendation to create the first ever major seminary in the three hundred plus year Catholic history in the area, to form presbyters for the new evangelization believing in the vision of the Pope and witnessing the serious challenges Micronesia is facing today because of secularization and the growing shortage of priests; and
WHEREAS, Guam's catechist team led by Fr. David C. Quitugua and Fr. Adrian Cristobal, drafted a letter, blessed by the Archbishop, to the initiators of the Neo-Catechumenal Way requesting for a Redemptoris Mater Seminary for Guam on February 2, 1999. Archbishop Apuron made a presentation to the Archdiocesan Priest Council regarding the petitioning in early September, 1999. Archbishop Apuron made a formal request for the Seminary in Porto S. Giorgio, Italy, at a convivence of the initiators of the Neo-Catechumenal Way with aspirant seminarians from all over the world at which time there was also petition from Dallas, Texas, thus reducing the chances to open one in Guam; and
WHEREAS, Kiko Arguello, Carmen Hernandez and Fr. Mario Pezzi, initiators and international responsible team of the Way, granted the petition of Archbishop Apuron on September 8, 1999, to the amazement of many, of opening a Redemptons Mater Seminary in Guam............Therefore, a petition was made and granted for the opening of a Redemptoris Mater Seminary on Guam in 1999. That petition was approved in the same year. That was THE reason for the purchase of the Accion Hotel in 2002. It was the NCW who went looking for a location for a Redemptoris Mater Seminary to be opened on Guam. And it was the NCW who found that property. The traditional Latin Mass Catholics never went out looking for any property nor did they ever petition for a seminary.
As for the letter from the donor that Mr. Untalan quoted, that quote came from the jungle. Tim Rohr never printed any letter from the donor. He only quoted from what he said was a letter from the donor. Tim also said that Archbishop Apuron wrote a letter to the donor asking for his/her support for his/her donation in purchasing the property for a seminary. Tim also never published the letter of the Archbishop with the Archdiocese letterhead. He only quoted what he said came from the Archbishop's letter.
That is as far as I know. Father Pius and whoever was there involved from 1999-2003 would have more information regarding the rest of Mr. Untalan's statements.
So be upright like these people from the former AFC and sign your name to your assertions.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 10:56 pm,
DeleteI provided more than my name. I provided the evidence showing that a petition was made and approved in 1999 for a Redemptoris Mater Seminary to be opened on Guam. That is in the records of the Guam Legislature and in the Archdiocese.
Diana is a fake name. You have never provided your name.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 11:26 pm,
DeleteMy name is not the one in dispute. It is the RMS that is in dispute.
Well, a lot of the things you've been saying over the last couple of years have already been shown to have been wrong. Why should we believe anything you say now, specially when its nothing anyway. So what if the decree for the RMS was signed in 1999? As the AFC said, there is a distinction between the RMS and the property. Before 2003 the RMS existed, but not on the property. There's no reason why it can't exist some other place now.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 1:01 am,
DeleteIt is a fact that it was the NCW who petitioned for a Redemptoris Mater Seminary to be established on Guam in 1999......not you. You did not petition anything.
It is a fact that it was the NCW who went looking for a seminary after the one in FD became inadequate....not you.
It is a fact that it was the NCW who found a property suitable for the Redemptoris Mater Seminary......not you.
It is a fact that it was the NCW who did all the leg work in helping the Archdiocese obtain that property.......not you.
And since it was the NCW who did all the leg work in finding a property for the purpose of establishing an RMS on Guam....I have no idea where Richard Untalan got the idea that the property was also supposed to be used for something else and yet could not specify what that "something else" is supposed to be. No financial council would ask for a 2 million dollar loan using "something else" as a basis for the purpose of the loan. The council would get into trouble with auditors if you cannot specify exactly what the money will be used for.
Now you stated: "There's no reason why it can't exist some other place now."
Seriously?????? Where is the justice???? The NCW did all this leg work and you think the RMS has no right to USE it. You think the RMS should exist some other place now??? And what do you intend to do with the property?????
And if the RMS find an even better place than the Yona property, what are you going to do??? Are you go after that property too and kick out the RMS? Are you going to send out CCOG to make a sham research without doing any of the leg work to discredit the RMS again??? Is that how it is done?
A look a the minutes of the AFC meetings pertaining to this purchase will be able to clear this up. A purchase of this magnitude would almost certainly have a "For the express purpose of..." listed, I would think!
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't know why @1:01 even mentions "another place" when they accuse the RMS as being a sham. Sounds to me as if they want to have it closed.
Dear Anonymous at 8:54 am,
DeleteSo, why did the former AFC only gave their written testimony? Why did they not include the minutes to support their testimony? Also, why is CCOG still looking into finding a lawyer for their lawsuit to get the property back? Do they not already have the Bronze lawyer? Is CCOG going to include their report in court so they can reveal how their independent research was done without visiting the seminary, without interviewing the professors, and without reviewing any data from the seminary?
Good point, Diana. Why didn't they include the minutes with their testimony? Yet, they were able to include Tim's quote of a quote he says is from a letter by the donor.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 9:44 am,
Delete"Tim's quote of a quote........." That is funny! :-)
Actually, the letter in question from the donor is accompanied by a sworn affidavit. Looks like Tim, once again, has the last laugh.
DeleteDeaf Anonymous at 9:58 am,
DeleteDid Archbishop Apuon's letter to the donor, which was quoted and never published by Tim Rohr, also come with a sworn affidavit?
Diana - It appears that AB Apuron's letter was referenced in the donor's response which comes with a sworn affidavit.
Delete"Are you go after that property too and kick out the RMS?"
ReplyDeleteIn light of the press release and ALL THE DOCUMENTATION and SIGNED ATTESTATIONS that APURON and PIUS illegally conspired behind the BACKS of GUAM CATHOLICS to deed this use of the property to RMS INC...
The RMS INC should show itself out before we kick them out.
Dear Anonymous at 8:58 am,
DeleteThere is one problem with the former AFC's claim. The property was never transferred to the RMS. Even Archbishop Hon stated that the property still belongs to the Archdiocese. The Deed Restriction has nothing to do with ownership. The ownership never changed. The Deed Restriction only allowed RMS to USE the property.
Furthermore, we also have the Archbishop's letter to the former AFC stating that the ownership does not change. It is only from one juridic person to the same juridic person.
But who's this person Diana?
ReplyDeleteBy coincidence, at the same time as the press conference yesterday, I was sitting with the realtor who “found” the property. His name is Mr. Chris Felix and he is the broker for Century 21 Realty Management. It was he who approached the archdiocese about possibly purchasing the property. I was at Mr. Felix’ office on another matter and the conversation turned to the church. I mentioned to him that Richard Untalan was holding a press conference today to lay out the matter. Mr. Felix said that he was very well aware of how the property was acquired because it was he and another broker who brokered the deal.
Dear Anonymous at 11:15 am,
DeleteAnd who approached Mr. Chris Felix and told him that the Archdiocese was interested in purchasing the property? Was it the NCW or the TLM Catholics?
Well, considering the Archdiocese is run by the NCW, why would it be these so-called "TLM Catholics"?
DeleteIn any case, all of this is red herring. The property was purchased by the Archdiocese, when the Archdiocese took a loan to pay for it. Later a donor offered to pay the costs, unaware of the NCW, and certainly unaware and unsupportive of the property being commandeered by an exclusive group within the Archdiocese.
The NCW then set about getting the property transferred to them, which was accomplished through secrecy, chicanery and deception.
Dear Anonymous at 3:37 pm,
DeleteHow was it a conspiracy when the former AFC and the Archbishop were constantly fighting over it? The AFC is only there to consult the Archbishop, but the Archbishop makes the final decision. He did not need the AFC approval because there was no change in ownership. A no change is ownership means no alienation. On the property.
I'm Catholic, I'm in the Way, and I live here in Guam. And even with my third grade education I can see in this debate that the purpose of purchasing the RMS building was for a Seminary.
ReplyDeleteSo if it was not for the RMS Seminary, there would have not been a need to purchase that property. And if it was not for Members of the Way, there would not be an RMS on Guam.
So even with my third grade education, I can see from all the educated peoples debate about this property, that really, Archbishop Apuron saw how greedy people are and that somehow they would try to kick out the Seminary so that they could use the property for something else, or sell it.
So, essentially, Archbishop Apuron saw to it to protect the purpose for which that property was purchased, by deeding it's use. So that it will always be a Seminary and thus fulfilling the purpose for which it was purchased.
Now for those who are trying to reverse that deed, you would be putting in jeopardy the reason the building was purchased. At least line up another Seminary before you try to kick out the RMS.
As dumb as I am with my third grade education, and with my bad English, I can see the brilliance of Archbishop Apuron. The biggest asset for the Catholics of Guam is the Seminary, NOT THE BUILDING. And so if a dumb Catholic like me can see that, you smart Catholics should be able to see it too.
Dumb Catholic from Inarajan
Dear Dumd Catholic. Let us say that the property was used to house not an RMS, but an ordinary Archdiocesan Seminary.
DeleteWould that be consistent with the reason the property was purchased? Would it satisfy the intentions of the donor?
So, if we closed the RMS and simply had a normal seminary located there, then there would be no problem huh?
Amen to that!
DeleteWOW!!!! Not so Dumb you make more sense then any of the folks in the Jungle, Well, well, Said. Smart Catholic from Inarajan :)
DeleteDear Anon @ 3:19 PM (AKA Dumb Catholic from Inarajan), please don't put yourself down. For someone with a third grade education, you express yourself very well! Your English is excellent. Your spelling, grammar and punctuation would make any third grade teacher proud.
DeleteDumb Catholic,
DeleteIf this Seminary idea was a good thing, then why did he do it behind the back of his CANON LAW REQUIRED COUNCIL?
Where today it has been discovered that it was against Church Law.
Explain to me, how breaking church law to make a seminary makes it all OK? Because i'm too dumb to understand.
You break the law, usually you return and or repay what damage you have caused.
SO APURON BREAKS the law ACCORDING TO THE HOLY SEE, that makes it OK? Explain to ME BECAUSE I'M A DUMB NCW FROM TAMUNING.
As long as they believe that the NCW is something separate of the catholic church then we will never be in agreement on any issue.
DeleteJust wanted to let everyone know that after a few months of applying for a car loan, I was finally approved. My parents were surprised that I went to a Bank for the cash and so to relieve me of this burden agreed to give me cash to pay off the bank loan in its entirety. They had one condition and that was to ensure that I started attending college. My friend who does not have a car is constantly in need of a ride but our schedules conflict, I have morning classes and he has evening classes. I have decided to write an authorization for he and only he to use my car for the sole purpose of taking classes. Although he has authorization, I still own the car. I can revoke this authorization at anytime.
Sounds Familiar ha?
So who owns the car?
Who owns the seminary property?
Dumb Catholic from Malojloj
At 12:45 AM your parents relieve you of this burden just be grateful you still have the car, no one can sell it, Dump from Malojlo
DeleteDPW has several buses that they use to transport students from the bus stop to their school. Who owns the bus?
Delete1. DPW who purchased the bus
2. The taxpayers whose money was used to purchase the bus
3. The bus driver who is authorized to drive the bus daily
4. The schools on the bus service route
5. ????
You oversimplified things, Malojloj. Did you sign over authorization "in perpetuity", as was done with the deed? Were you supposed to get permission to do so, as is required with large Diocesan dealings (not just sales)?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 8:59 pm,
DeleteYou stated: "If this Seminary idea was a good thing, then why did he do it behind the back of his CANON LAW REQUIRED COUNCIL?"
He did not. What did you think they were disputing over in 2011? The Finance Council thought that Archbishop Apuron was going to give the title of the property to RMS. Archbishop Apuron wrote to the Council, saying that he is not giving it away because the person is the same owner. The Finance Council knew already knew about it.
Dear Diana 8:11AM,
DeleteHon also said this type of transaction also needed to go for Vatican review. Did this happen?
Dear Anonymous at 8:37 am,
DeleteArchbishop Hon never said that.
Dear Anon. on Sept. 1 at 3:40 pm-
DeleteLet's say you had two sons, and son number one wanted to find a house for his family. So he asks for your help and you agree, and you and him together look around and together you find a house suitable for his family.
Years go by and your second son throws a hissy-fit, and demands that your first son and his family be thrown out.
Would you throw out your first son and his family? And if yes, would you believe that to be fair?
Dumb Catholic from Inarajan
Dear Anon. on Sept. 1 at 8:59 pm -
DeleteNormally, an accused is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
But, it is people dumber than me, which is amazing because I didn't think it was possible, who accuse, convict, and sentence a person without a trial in the court of law.
Dumb Catholic from Inarajan
Amen!
ReplyDeleteyou are in good company my brother from Inarajan. Christ built his church with fishermen; people who count for nothing and through his love and grace made them Saints. He did not choose lawyers; the rich, educated.
ReplyDeleteDo not be afraid as we all know what happened to the Apostles.
dumb catholic from mangilao
Um, actually, yeah, he did. Try Matthew. For that matter, Peter and Andrew owned their own boats, so that's at the least middle class. Luke was a doctor. And so on.
DeleteCCOG and LFM, if you aren't happy with RMS and you're boycotting the Archdiocesan Appeal, then use the money that would otherwise be going there to save up and buy a piece of property which you can then donate to the church with the condition that it be used soley for a seminary OTHER THAN the RMS. In fact, the money you are spending on lawsuits could otherwise be going into that purpose as well. And once that institute is established, you and your supporters can then gladly and peacefully donate directly to the institution as a private donor. In fact, why not place yourselves on the board of guarantors and bind the property to your organization, like Archbishop Apuron did?
ReplyDeleteBasically, if you're not happy, stop complaining about the past and move on and find a solution to your problem because it's blatently obvious that Archbishop Apuron is not going to listen or follow your suggestions.
It's a lot of work and effort, but you've already put in so much and doing this would seem to relieve you of racking your brains and legal fees in figuring out how to counteract the Archbisbop and take down the RMS and Neocatechumenal Way. Wouldn't you agree that this way would be a more efficient use of your time, energy, and money?
Just asking....
Tim still thinks May is Diana. LOL! I know for a fact that May didn't go to the WYD trip.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 8:15 am,
DeleteI was accused of being many different people and even a conglomerate of different people. They think my writing style changes.
Untalan responded by stating first that the AFC approved the purchase of the Yona property in 2002 by securing a loan of $2 million from the Bank of Guam.
Delete“The previous owner did not have a proviso that the building be used for an educational facility,” Untalan said.
Untalan provided written evidence of correspondence between the anonymous donor and Apuron in which the donor refused to sign a letter stating that the money was given with the intention it be used for the establishment of the RMS.
Dear Anonymous at 10:05 am,
DeleteThat 2 million dollar loan was paid off by the donor. The donor heard that the Archdiocese wanted a seminary and therefore gave the Archdiocese the money for it. The intention of the donor is that the property be used for a seminary that will benefit the people of Guam and that his/her identity be kept anonymous. The money was used to pay off the loan at the Bank of Guam thereby costing the people of Guam no money to pay for the seminary because a donor paid it off. The intention of the Archdiocese since 1999 was to establish a Redemptoris Mater Seminary. And it was the NCW who worked hard to make this happen.
Diana is Dr. Eusebio.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 1:17 pm,
DeleteSeriously???? Now, the jungle is saying that I am Dr. Eusebio?